65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 06:03 am
@hamilton,
So did this thread.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 06:04 am
@spendius,
that prooves it then. evolution exist...
(its 2/2)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 08:03 am
@hamilton,
I never said it didn't.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 08:48 am
@spendius,
i didnt say you said it didnt.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:54 am
@raprap,
Quote:
Surgeon's of the time were concerned as this was before the germ theory was proposed and the festering of wounds was considered normal.
Thats not true . Surgeons knew that if they cut off a limb it would look cleaner as it healed . They also knew that if you got as much foreign material out of a wound as you could the person stood a better chance of recovery . That is why they took limbs off...the difficulty of getting a clean looking wound . They didnt know why, but they definitely knew what .
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 05:40 pm
@Ionus,
i agree. my bro's an emt!
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2011 02:31 am
A great development in science, and a wonderful demonstration of evolution in action:

New Scientist wrote:

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity

IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle.

Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life began, but the last time was about 200 million years ago, leaving few clues to the precise sequence of events. To understand the process better, William Ratcliff and colleagues at the University of Minnesota in St Paul set out to evolve multicellularity in a common unicellular lab organism, brewer's yeast.

Their approach was simple: they grew the yeast in a liquid and once each day gently centrifuged each culture, inoculating the next batch with the yeast that settled out on the bottom of each tube. Just as large sand particles settle faster than tiny silt, groups of cells settle faster than single ones, so the team effectively selected for yeast that clumped together.

Sure enough, within 60 days - about 350 generations - every one of their 10 culture lines had evolved a clumped, "snowflake" form. Crucially, the snowflakes formed not from unrelated cells banding together but from cells that remained connected to one another after division, so that all the cells in a snowflake were genetically identical relatives. This relatedness provides the conditions necessary for individual cells to cooperate for the good of the whole snowflake.

"The key step in the evolution of multicellularity is a shift in the level of selection from unicells to groups. Once that occurs, you can consider the clumps to be primitive multicellular organisms," says Ratcliff.

In some ways, the snowflakes do behave as if they are multicellular. They grow bigger by cell division and when the snowflakes reach a certain size a portion breaks off to form a daughter cell. This "life cycle" is much like the juvenile and adult stages of many multicellular organisms.

After a few hundred further generations of selection, the snowflakes also began to show a rudimentary division of labour. As the snowflakes reach their "adult" size, some cells undergo programmed cell death, providing weak points where daughters can break off. This lets the snowflakes make more offspring while leaving the parent large enough to sink quickly to the base of the tube, ensuring its survival. Snowflake lineages exposed to different evolutionary pressures evolved different levels of cell death. Since it is rarely to the advantage of an individual cell to die, this is a clear case of cooperation for the good of the larger organism. This is a key sign that the snowflakes are evolving as a unit, Ratcliff reported last week at a meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution in Norman, Oklahoma.

Other researchers familiar with the work were generally enthusiastic. "It really seemed to me to have the elements of the unfolding in real time of a major transition," says Ben Kerr, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "The fact that it happened so quickly was really exciting."

Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.

"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."

Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.

Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. They are also continuing their yeast experiments to see whether further division of labour will evolve within the snowflakes. Both approaches offer an unprecedented opportunity to bring experimental rigour to the study of one of the most important leaps in our distant evolutionary past.


source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

What's sad about this is that despite the diligent work made by the scientists to demonstrate this, people who refuse to believe in evolution will still demand that their opinion by put on par with this kind of research.

Here's a picture of the thing ID faithists must refuse to acknowledge:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg21028184.300/mg21028184.300-1_300.jpg

A
R
T
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2011 04:05 am
@failures art,
kewl, they worked with cells adaptation imperatives by merely adjusting the energy in their "home medium". I like their little faces
it gives them character.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2011 04:44 am
@failures art,
Nice article. Thanks.

We'll never be able to convince Creationists of anything, but our argument certainly isn't helped by calling these new things "another form of Yeast". Creationists will say, "see, it's just another form of Yeast. We already admit to microevolution just not macroevolution". So we need to give these things another name, like Zorg's or Yugmeisters or something. Then we can say, "see, it's not a Yeast anymore. It's a Zorg." It's all in the nomenclature I tell ya.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2011 04:49 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

A great development in science, and a wonderful demonstration of evolution in action:

New Scientist wrote:

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."

Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.

Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. They are also continuing their yeast experiments to see whether further division of labour will evolve within the snowflakes. Both approaches offer an unprecedented opportunity to bring experimental rigour to the study of one of the most important leaps in our distant evolutionary past.

Even if their experiment with Chlamydomonas fails to produce the same results, it'll say something interesting about the embedded traits retained in the DNA of any organism, namely that those traits can be re-accessed by the population much more readily than thought.

Either result that that experiment will be really cool.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:29 am
@failures art,
Quote:
a wonderful demonstration of evolution in action:
Yes, wonderful...how is it a demonstration of evolution ? By using a mechanism that it already had, isnt that de-evolution ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 05:33 am
@Ionus,
as Ken MIller has entered this phrase into evolution literature.
"Evolution is taking what youve already got and doing something different with it"
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 06:04 am
@Ionus,
Io--they think putting A in with B under X conditions and noting the result is science. And it is what kids do. Infants even. All you need to do to impress these silly sods is think up new As, Bs and Xs. If that's too difficult they test out somebody else's As, Bs and Xs to confirm their findings. Interlard the finished product with magical words and, hey-presto, your readers feel a scientific mood coming over them which then qualifies them to hold forth definitively on any subject under the sun and being entitled to be listened to with respect and admiration.

It's not that much different to thinking oneself to be Napoleon or the Second Coming. Professional educators exploit this sentimental weakness in like manner to that of prostitutes exploiting another, but related, weakness. IQ measurement franchises too. The fashion industry.

A bloke I knew did a PhD thesis on the reproductive mechanisms of a type of fish which had been missed by all the other Doctorate hopefuls because it was only found in a previously unexplored tributary in the Amazon delta. He was a knowall and supercilious with it.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 10:20 am
@spendius,
Your use of capital letters doesn't mean anything except to yourself; that's where it belongs.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 10:48 am
@cicerone imposter,
What dire company you must be ci. No wonder you make your sister cry.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 01:01 pm
@spendius,
spendi, Why can't you understand that it's my sister who doesn't understand me! I'm an atheist; you're too dumb to understand simple concepts.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 01:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why her not understanding you makes her cry I can't imagine. I would have a nervous breakdown if I thought for a moment I understood you.

There's a young chap goes in the pub, he was in last night, who nobody can understand. I was watching him for a bit talking to various people during one very loud rocker and it was quite funny the mannerisms they displayed to try to act as if they could tell what he was blathering as that's the polite thing to do. I told him to **** off years ago which he took in good part.

That's two methods your sister could employ. Is she in your will or anything?

Anybody who makes their sister cry more than once for no other reason than that he's an atheist is hardly an ideal role-model for budding atheists. It's going to make some young lad have second thoughts about going too far in trying to persuade the only daughter of rich church goers to put out with the "there was no flood" argument and the stuff about the blue-bottomed monkey Mr Burton mentions.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 01:59 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You are one stupid bloke. I didn't make my sister cry; she cried because she doesn't understand me and my beliefs. It's beyond my control - you ignoramus!

If my sister cried because I married a buddhist, that's beyond my control also. There are things in life that I will not change to satisfy my siblings, because their feelings might get hurt.

I'm not like you christians who use religion to advocate to take away equal rights from fellow humans. You guys are sick in the head.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 02:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Is the drunk still unable to unerstand the concept of civil rights?? He is dummer than a barrel of carp.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:52 pm
@farmerman,
fm better be careful. Some viewers might suspect he has been peeking at my posts again.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 12:34:09